CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01209 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01209

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date2/2/2026
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under multiple adjudicative guidelines, including Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), Guideline M (Use of Information Technology), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations related to the applicant's past behavior, including unauthorized access to a former girlfriend's social media account and psychological issues.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some past conduct but denied any malicious intent, arguing that he did not "hack" into his ex-girlfriend's account as it was publicly accessible. He also presented evidence from mental health providers to mitigate concerns regarding his psychological condition. However, the administrative judge's decision heavily relied on a specific psychological evaluation while failing to adequately consider other significant treatment records, leading to claims of bias and procedural errors in the analysis of the evidence.
The Appeal Board ultimately remanded the case, citing the judge's failure to consider important evidence and the potential bias reflected in the decision. The Board emphasized the need for a fair and impartial adjudication and directed that a different judge review the case, allowing for either a decision based on the existing record or a new hearing if necessary.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline DSexual Behavior · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline IPsychological Conditions · Against Applicant
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-01209

Feb 2, 2026· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant, represented by counsel, whose security clearance was initially denied under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The appeal board identified several errors in the judge's initial decision, leading to a remand for reconsideration.

Specifically, the judge failed to consider significant evidence provided by the applicant's mental health providers. Additionally, the judge's reliance on a particular psychological evaluation was found to be erroneous and lacked support within the record. The board also determined that the judge's characterization of the applicant's conduct as "hacking" was inaccurate and not substantiated by the evidence presented.

Due to these identified errors and the failure to properly consider all relevant evidence, the appeal board did not issue a final clearance decision. Instead, the case was returned for a new evaluation, ensuring a comprehensive review of all facts and evidence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 13raisedSexual Behavior
AG ¶ 16raisedPsychological Conditions
AG ¶ 17raisedUse of Information Technology
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“A judge must consider and evaluate an applicant’s conduct under any and all Guidelines under which it has been alleged in the SOR.”
— ISCR Case No. 01-03107, 2002 WL 32114507 at *4 (App. Bd. Aug. 27, 2002)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 27, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 24, 2025
Decision dateFeb 2, 2026Appeal decision remanding the case.

Cite For

Remand Due to Failure to Consider Significant Evidence
Bias in Adjudication Process
Importance of Fair Evaluation in Security Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on concerns under multiple guidelines. The Applicant challenged the Judge's findings and mitigation analysis, claiming bias and procedural errors. The Board remanded the case for further consideration, citing significant errors in the Judge's analysis and reliance on evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline DGuideline IGuideline MGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge failed to consider significant psychological treatment records from the Applicant's mental health providers.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge erroneously found that the Applicant 'hacked' into his ex-girlfriend's Instagram account.
Procedural error — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge failed to analyze several allegations in the Statement of Reasons.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's personal feelings about the Applicant's past conduct affected the decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge failed to consider significant evidence and made erroneous factual findings, leading to a decision that lacked a fair and reasoned analysis of the case.

Ignored material evidenceCredibility-deference errorMissing findingsOther

On remand, the judge must

The case is remanded to a different judge for a new decision based on the existing record or a new hearing if either party declines to consent.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Jennifer Goldstein
Allison Marie

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.